Anti-Communist Revolutions are Spreading

Left-wing “progressives” and the “libertarian” Infowars.com website of Alex Jones are having a nervous breakdown over events in Ukraine. The anti-communist revolution has the potential to reveal who is really committed to the notion of a “Free World” and seek to protect it against a resurgent Russia. There are lessons here for freedom-loving people around the world.

Ukrainian-Americans are elated. “The Ukrainian revolution has won today and it’s very emotional for me,” writes Oleg Atbashian, a writer and graphic artist from the former USSR who was born and raised in Ukraine. Oleg is the founder of the People’s Cube website, which exposes with ridicule the schemes of the communists and their fellow travelers, the progressives.

One of his latest entries is about the growing number of Lenin statues being toppled in Ukraine: “Despite severe weather conditions, the plan to topple Lenin statues in Ukraine has been successfully completed this month, ahead of schedule. The government of the former Soviet republic is happy to report that the quota of toppling monuments to Vladimir Lenin and other communist leaders has been met and in some places exceeded, with toppling of a number of unrelated statues in the process.”

In reality, this humorous entry isn’t far from the truth. A “Good Bye Lenin” website shows the number of Lenin statues being toppled so far. A video shows some being toppled while this photo list has pictures of the statues that have been targeted.

On the left, however, journalist Robert Parry is disappointed with the anti-communist revolution in Ukraine and the overthrow of the “pro-Russian government.” He calls it a “coup” and setback for President Obama’s foreign policy.

“As President,” Parry writes, “Obama has sought a more cooperative relationship with Russia’s Putin and, generally, a less belligerent approach toward adversarial countries. Obama has been supported by an inner circle at the White House with analytical assistance from some elements of the U.S. intelligence community.”

This used to be called “appeasement.” It still seems to be the left’s foreign policy.

Using the kind of language we see coming out of Moscow, whose puppet in Ukraine has been overthrown, Parry refers to the revolutionaries in Ukraine as “neo-fascist storm troopers,” “neo-Nazi militias” and “right-wing armed patrols.”

It appears that Parry is auditioning for a show on RT (Russia Today), the Moscow-funded propaganda network that is available on many U.S. cable and satellite systems, such as Comcast. His colleague, Thom Hartmann, described as the #1 progressive radio talk-show host in the U.S., is already on RT, doing a program called “The Big Picture.” He takes Russian money without apology, but recoils when questioned about it.

The “Big Picture” is that events in Ukraine have exposed the pro-Russian sensibilities of the “progressive” left in the United States. They do not want to see anti-communism succeed under any circumstances. If anti-communism can win in Ukraine, perhaps it can make a comeback in other countries, like Venezuela or even the U.S.!

A press release with the headline, “Ukraine: Coup with Far Right Calling Shots,” comes from the Institute for Public Accuracy, a group supported by Barbra Streisand. It offered up a commentator who has expressed alarm that the new Ukrainian government is threatening to outlaw the Communist Party of Ukraine.

Such widely-watched leftist programs as “Democracy Now!,” hosted by Amy Goodman, have insisted that the country’s “democratically elected president” has been overthrown and question the nature of the revolution in Ukraine. While Viktor Yanukovych did win an election in 2010, by 49 percent to 46 percent, he consolidated his power in an illegal and unconstitutional way, raising serious questions about whether the next presidential election in March 2015 would be free and fair. Then his police opened fire on peaceful protesters.

Part of his plan, which we are seeing unfold in the U.S. under Obama’s FCC, was to stifle dissident voices.

Freedom House pointed out, “The media [in Ukraine] do not provide the population with unbiased information, as business magnates with varying political interests own and influence many outlets, and the state exercises politicized control over a nationwide television network and television stations at the regional level. Some 69 percent of Ukrainians get their news from television, and the medium now features fewer alternative points of view, open discussions, and expert opinions than in previous years.” It added that “Pressure on independent media increased dramatically during 2013.”

The anti-freedom forces on the left have been joined by Alex Jones on the right in denouncing the uprising in Ukraine. One can find any number of stories on the Jones website echoing what the left is saying. In the past, Jones has defended the Russian invasion of Georgia, a former Soviet republic like Ukraine. Lyndon LaRouche, a convicted felon who began his career as a Marxist, was recently on the Alex Jones radio show warning about the “destabilization of Ukraine” by the West, and a “potential thermonuclear war with Russia.”

One is tempted to ignore or dismiss these absurd claims, except for the fact that Jones is taken seriously by many libertarians who have come to believe the U.S. is far more of a danger to the world than Putin’s Russia. Jones is closely associated with former Congressman Ron Paul and his son, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). In fact, Jones raised money for their political campaigns.

While Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R) has been outspoken against Russia’s designs on Ukraine and other former Soviet republics, Senator Rand Paul has been strangely silent. “The Free World Stands with the People of Ukraine” was the headline over the press release from Cruz’s office. “The world cannot afford to be distracted by the Olympic festivities in Sochi as just next door liberty-seeking Ukrainians are brutalized by their own government.”

Meanwhile, Senator Paul was winning applause from the left by testifying in favor of voting rights for convicted felons and continuing his campaign against the NSA.

One charge we usually hear from the crowd associated with Alex Jones, designed to appeal to conservatives, is that George Soros and his Open Society Institute are somehow implicated in the revolution in Ukraine and controlling events behind the scenes. Freedom fighters in Ukraine are described by Alex Jones writer Kurt Nimmo as “Soros activists,” a smear term, and linked somehow to the CIA.

Like much of what we hear from Jones and his ilk, this is disinformation designed to confuse people and benefit Russia. Inevitably, these accounts trace back to a website, Global Research, which warns that the revolution in Ukraine could “threaten Russia.” The Nimmo story is directly sourced to an article by Peter Schwarz, a regular contributor to Global Research who is secretary of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI), which considers itself as the leader of the world socialist movement. Schwarz is also a member of the International Editorial Board of the World Socialist website.

The fact that a “libertarian” site would link to such a source speaks volumes about the nature of the media today and the special interests manipulating international news coverage.

While it’s true that the Soros-affiliated International Renaissance Foundation is active in Ukraine, it has played a minor role. Nevertheless, it appears that Soros has come down on the right side of this conflict, for his own reasons, and that if the past is any guide he will want to take the country in a “progressive” direction.

But just because Soros has a hand in Ukraine (and dozens of other countries) does not mean that his vision for the country will emerge as predominant. That is up to the people to determine. In Ukraine, the anti-communist nature of the revolution should help make the Soros vision impossible to implement. These people have shown they are smart enough to understand and recognize the bankruptcy of Marxism.

Ukraine may serve as an example of what can be done when Marxists think they can consolidate their power and oppress the people. Perhaps Venezuela and Russia will provide more examples. Can America be far behind?

About the author

Meanwhile back in America, the progressive agenda continues their aggressive push in our free society for socialism…….. and the sheeple are eating it up

barbbf

After reading the article….i wonder if Mr. Kincaid is on the payroll of the Obama administration.

barbbf

ANOTHER POV..FROM COUNTERPUNCH.ORG

January 29, 2014
The Menace Across the European Continent
Ukraine and the Rebirth of Fascism

by ERIC DRAITSER

The violence on the streets of Ukraine is far more than an expression of popular anger against a government. Instead, it is merely the latest example of the rise of the most insidious form of fascism that Europe has seen since the fall of the Third Reich.

Recent months have seen regular protests by the Ukrainian political opposition and its supporters – protests ostensibly in response to Ukrainian President Yanukovich’s refusal to sign a trade agreement with the European Union that was seen by many political observers as the first step towards European integration. The protests remained largely peaceful until January 17th when protesters armed with clubs, helmets, and improvised bombs unleashed brutal violence on the police, storming government buildings, beating anyone suspected of pro-government sympathies, and generally wreaking havoc on the streets of Kiev. But who are these violent extremists and what is their ideology?

The political formation is known as “Pravy Sektor” (Right Sector), which is essentially an umbrella organization for a number of ultra-nationalist (read fascist) right wing groups including supporters of the “Svoboda” (Freedom) Party, “Patriots of Ukraine”, “Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian National Self Defense” (UNA-UNSO), and “Trizub”. All of these organizations share a common ideology that is vehemently anti-Russian, anti-immigrant, and anti-Jewish among other things. In addition they share a common reverence for the so called “Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists” led by Stepan Bandera, the infamous Nazi collaborators who actively fought against the Soviet Union and engaged in some of the worst atrocities committed by any side in World War II.

While Ukrainian political forces, opposition and government, continue to negotiate, a very different battle is being waged in the streets. Using intimidation and brute force more typical of Hitler’s “Brownshirts” or Mussolini’s “Blackshirts” than a contemporary political movement, these groups have managed to turn a conflict over economic policy and the political allegiances of the country into an existential struggle for the very survival of the nation that these so called “nationalists” claim to love so dearly. The images of Kiev burning, Lviv streets filled with thugs, and other chilling examples of the chaos in the country, illustrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the political negotiation with the Maidan (Kiev’s central square and center of the protests) opposition is now no longer the central issue. Rather, it is the question of Ukrainian fascism and whether it is to be supported or rejected.

For its part, the United States has strongly come down on the side of the opposition, regardless of its political character. In early December, members of the US ruling establishment such as John McCain and Victoria Nuland were seen at Maidan lending their support to the protesters. However, as the character of the opposition has become apparent in recent days, the US and Western ruling class and its media machine have done little to condemn the fascist upsurge. Instead, their representatives have met with representatives of Right Sector and deemed them to be “no threat.” In other words, the US and its allies have given their tacit approval for the continuation and proliferation of the violence in the name of their ultimate goal: regime change.

In an attempt to pry Ukraine out of the Russian sphere of influence, the US-EU-NATO alliance has, not for the first time, allied itself with fascists. Of course, for decades, millions in Latin America were disappeared or murdered by fascist paramilitary forces armed and supported by the United States. The mujahideen of Afghanistan, which later transmogrified into Al Qaeda, also extreme ideological reactionaries, were created and financed by the United States for the purposes of destabilizing Russia. And of course, there is the painful reality of Libya and, most recently Syria, where the United States and its allies finance and support extremist jihadis against a government that has refused to align with the US and Israel. There is a disturbing pattern here that has never been lost on keen political observers: the United States always makes common cause with right wing extremists and fascists for geopolitical gain.

The situation in Ukraine is deeply troubling because it represents a political conflagration that could very easily tear the country apart less than 25 years after it gained independence from the Soviet Union. However, there is another equally disturbing aspect to the rise of fascism in that country – it is not alone.

The Fascist Menace Across the Continent

Ukraine and the rise of right wing extremism there cannot be seen, let alone understood, in isolation. Rather, it must be examined as part of a growing trend throughout Europe (and indeed the world) – a trend which threatens the very foundations of democracy.

rivahmitch

Actually, we need just such an anti-communist revolution in this country against the Kenyan marxist. Semper Fi!

kuhnkat

Look bud, when the commies are being replaced by Fascists or Jihadis I have nothing to celebrate. When those people are being supported by the US and the Eurozone it doesn’t make it better.

Expect to see a reprise of Georgia.

stringman

At the very least, if Sen. Rand Paul has been indoctinated with even a little of his old man’s foreign policy philosophy, then he will be too isolationist and too antisemitic for the good of the nation. The world is on fire with the left/right/islamist trifecta and we need pro-American leadership that isn’t going to sit on the sidelines scratching their ass. We certainly don’t need that Marxist Obama in the white house. If you really think that the US has been more of a force for bad than good in the world then, you should go rot! Cause when we’re gone, freedom goes with us. The Marxists and the Jihadists will have won and, God help anyone left alive. Could there be a more tragic end to the dream of freedom than burkas, beheadings, and breadlines. Do you really want to live like those people!?!?!?

joshuasweet

with over 60 members of Congress and this administration proudly standing as Communist-Marxist perhaps we need to have our own anti-communist revolution

Mark R

Except in this case, average everyday Ukrainians are taking their country back.

https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

I would like to remind Cliff Kincaid that there are no free elections in the Ukraine, nor in any of the other 14 republics that still make up the USSR. All political parties in the “former” USSR were created by the Communists before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR. That’s why up until 2013 the “electorates” of Russia, Ukraine and Georgia were only “electing” for president Soviet era Communist Party member Quislings, except for the first president of Georgia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, a true dissident who didn’t even last nine months in office before he was ousted in a coup, later said to have committed “suicide”. Zviad Gamsakhurdia was a failed test run to see if a non-Communist Party member president could be controlled. You hadn’t noticed that, huh?

Presidents of Russia, Georgia and the Ukraine since the “collapse” of the USSR, and their political affiliation before the “collapse” (cut off date June 30, 2013):

However, kudos on correctly calling the Ukrainian uprising an anti-Communist revolt, which is exactly what it is, and why Russia had to intervene in the Ukraine to assist Kiev in restoring “order”. In fact, the so-called Ukrainian “separatists” are actually Russian Spetsnaz and Guards Airborne troops, which is why a Russian colonel, Igor Strelkov, is in command and not a Ukrainian.* These disguised Russian military units entered the Ukraine last February when the Ukrainian population, nationwide, revolted against the Communist government in Kiev,** the cause for the revolt being the weakened security apparatus within the nation, where most of the Ukrainian Army was in either Syria or Iraq, or preparing to enter Iraq from Turkey, pretending to be Muslim “Jihadists” (Islamic State). The Islamic State “Jihadists” wearing the silly masks are the Ukrainians, hiding their pale Caucasian/Slavic identities. Russian special forces posing as Ukrainian separatists are allied with the remnants of the Ukrainian security apparatus in the nation and are attempting to restore Communist “order”.

The article failed to explain why after 23-years the Ukrainian population could revolt and finally topple those hated statues to Lenin and other Communist “heroes”. Now you know.

Moscow & Allies tasked the West to create Islamic State in southern Turkey (using Ukrainian troops to augment the fake “Islamists”) in order (1) to continue spotlighting the chaos the West causes around the globe, though it’s actually Moscow & Allies causing the chaos via their Marxist puppets in Western capitals; thereby (2) decreasing the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world; and (3) further weaken the United States Armed Forces via never ending wars per Moscow & Allies’ tasked “War on Terror”; the United States Armed Forces will be re-deployed to Iraq.

The fraudulent “collapse” of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Moscow & Allies, which explains why verification of the “collapse” was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

Notice that not one political party in the West demanded verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the “alternative” media. When determining whether the “former” USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the “former” USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

It gets worse–the West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested and detained the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of “Perestroika” (1986-1991)!

There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

**As hundreds of statues of Lenin were being toppled throughout the Ukraine, statues that were supposed to have been toppled back in 1991 if the collapse of the USSR were real and not the strategic ruse it is.

https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

Part II

As for the so-called “alternative media”, that’s co-opted too as you correctly observe. Marxists call this strategy the “scissors strategy”, in which the blades represent the two falsely opposed sides that converge on the confused victims…

“Scissors Strategy”

The dialectic often appears under other names. A December 30, 1961 report by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, entitled “The New Role of National Legislative Bodies in the Communist Conspiracy,” contained two crucial chapters from a book smuggled out of Czechoslovakia. Written by an official of that country’s Communist Party, the book described the dialectical method used to seize power in Czechoslovakia. Communists infiltrated key positions in the Czechoslovak government, while simultaneously organizing street demonstrations against that government. Those two arms of the dialectic, by pretending to fight each other, generated enough confusion among the general public that all genuine opposition was neutralized. The book used the terms coined by V.I. Lenin, first dictator of the Soviet Union, referring to thesis and antithesis as “pressure from above” and “pressure from below.”

The Soviet KGB uses its own set of code words to refer to the dialectical strategy. According to former KGB staff officer Anatoliy Golitsyn, the official term for the dialectic is the “scissors strategy,” in which the blades represent the two falsely opposed sides that converge on the confused victims. Golitsyn, who is probably the most important Soviet ever to defect to the West, escaped in 1961. After more than two decades of trying to warn uninterested American leaders, he wrote the 1984 book New Lies for Old as a warning to the general public, exposing the role of the scissors strategy in global events.

Golitsyn revealed that the Communist bloc had adopted a coordinated long-term strategy beginning in the late 1950s, created in part by Golitsyn himself, the purpose being to convince the West that international Communism was disintegrating. Phony dissidents, factions, and power struggles within Communist parties, splits or wars between Communist nations, and temporary freedoms within each country have become dialectical tools of deception, allowing people in the West to take sides in these controlled struggles and thereby succumb to the strategy. Golitsyn argued that the dialectic has succeeded because imaginary factions or splits among Communist rulers are perceived as real by the West.”

The following is a blockbuster discovery I made only last week regarding the fake collapse of the USSR…

When Soviet citizens were liberated from 74 years of Marxist oppression on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the “collapse” of the USSR was a strategic ruse; and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists,* otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn’t have gotten away with the ruse.

ZERO celebrations, as the The Atlantic article inadvertently informs us…

The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.

————————-

*The failed socialist inspired and controlled pan-European revolutions that swept the continent in 1848 thought Marxists and socialists a powerful lesson, that lesson being they couldn’t win overtly, so they adopted the tactic of infiltration of the West’s political parties/institutions. That’s why not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the “alternative” media. When determining whether the “former” USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the “former” USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!